Is 4th edition getting soft? - edited for friendly content :)

[Grog]

So why in the world would this reasoning be limited to just save-or-die effects? Isn't *any* sort of death, even the kind that takes 4 rounds instead of 1, going to end a PCs career (barring raise dead et. al.)? Why is killing someone in 4 rounds substantially better than in 1 round?

Because the former offers the player (and his friends) a chance to take action to prevent his death. He doesn't get that chance when the bad guy wins initiative, points at him and says "Boo!" and he falls over dead before he can even act because he didn't roll high enough on the d20.

 

[Remathilis]

In other words, an NPC of a certain skill who is able to catch the party unprepared will never be a "fair fight". It's a fight that's designed, by the ambushing party, specifically to be unfair. The DM should make only sparing use of such things... but you'll never tailor it out of the rules unless you simply make everything a complete cake walk.

Sure, I can also throw a Titan at a first level party. Its not a fair fight, its specifically UNfair. But that's what CR (or its next of kin) should tell me.

Consider the Bodak (CR 8) Death Stare DC 15. So a group of 8th level PCs consider him a "Reasonable" challenge.

Lidda the rogue has a fort save of +4 (+2 class, +1 con, +1 halfling). She must roll an 11 or better (50%) to survive. Thats a 50% death chance.
Mialee the wizard has a fort save of +2 (+2 class, no con). 13 or better (60%) she has a 40% chance of survival.
Jozan the cleric has a fort save of +8 (+6 class, +2 con). He needs only a 7 (30%) so he he has a 70% chance of living.
Tordek the fighter has a fort save of +9 (+6 class, +3 con) so hee need a 6 or better (25%). He has 75% chance of living.

(note: for speed I used the NPC stat block, adjusted for race. If you want to ajdust for PC gold, give them all a +1 cloak (+5%) and call it a day).

This normal encounter has anywhere from a 25-60% chance of killing one or more members of the group on the first initiative round. Few other CR 8 monsters (even the Mind Flayer) can KILL 1 one standard action.

 

[Remathilis]

So why in the world would this reasoning be limited to just save-or-die effects? Isn't *any* sort of death, even the kind that takes 4 rounds instead of 1, going to end a PCs career (barring raise dead et. al.)? Why is killing someone in 4 rounds substantially better than in 1 round?

Because that's three more rounds I have to influence the action. I could teleport away, damage it with my magic sword, crit it and drop it, drink a cure potion to heal that crit I took, run, or even just three more rounds to curse the gods for my fate. At least I got 3-4 actions before I expired to make a contribution or a decision, not merely the 0-1 actions to make a saving throw.

 

[Korgoth]

Sure, I can also throw a Titan at a first level party. Its not a fair fight, its specifically UNfair. But that's what CR (or its next of kin) should tell me.

Consider the Bodak (CR 8) Death Stare DC 15. So a group of 8th level PCs consider him a "Reasonable" challenge.

Lidda the rogue has a fort save of +4 (+2 class, +1 con, +1 halfling). She must roll an 11 or better (50%) to survive. Thats a 50% death chance.
Mialee the wizard has a fort save of +2 (+2 class, no con). 13 or better (60%) she has a 40% chance of survival.
Jozan the cleric has a fort save of +8 (+6 class, +2 con). He needs only a 7 (30%) so he he has a 70% chance of living.
Tordek the fighter has a fort save of +9 (+6 class, +3 con) so hee need a 6 or better (25%). He has 75% chance of living.

(note: for speed I used the NPC stat block, adjusted for race. If you want to ajdust for PC gold, give them all a +1 cloak (+5%) and call it a day).

This normal encounter has anywhere from a 25-60% chance of killing one or more members of the group on the first initiative round. Few other CR 8 monsters (even the Mind Flayer) can KILL 1 one standard action.

I think this is more of a problem with the CR system than anything else. The Gurps sniper I mentioned can probably be designed on a fairly low number of points, if he's basically Rain Man at everything else besides blasting PCs.

The Bodak is a bit of a "sniper monster". It's the best there is at what it does, and what it does isn't balanced. I would hope that as a DM I wouldn't throw that monster at PCs of that level if by "throw at" is meant that it jumps out of a bowl of rice and Death Stares the PCs. If by "throw at" we mean that he shows up in The Death Tombs of Impossible Survival or can be found wandering around in La Plaza del Bodak, then fine.

The point is, the DM should generally give the party a chance. I'm not going to have the party attacked in their sleep by an Arch-Lich while all the spell casters are asleep no matter what level they are, unless they've messed up so epically that they should really know it's coming. As the DM, it's my responsibility to allow a TPK, not specifically to engineer one. But if they have a fair chance of circumventing or blitzing the bodak, then the bodak is fair. If they don't, it probably isn't.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

So why in the world would this reasoning be limited to just save-or-die effects? Isn't *any* sort of death, even the kind that takes 4 rounds instead of 1, going to end a PCs career (barring raise dead et. al.)? Why is killing someone in 4 rounds substantially better than in 1 round?

Because players can react to the situation? Its the same reason I think zinger traps suck. Whats the fun of a single shot spring loaded dart compared to racing the boulder? I think the drowned is a much cooler monster than the bodak, despite both of them effectively having death auras. The drowned creates fun tactical situations where players try and drag each other out as they start drowning, administer mouth to mouth mid fight, etc.

For example, taking 4 rounds to kill a PC instead of 1 is better maybe because the DM can fudge and cheat to prevent it from happening.

Why would you assume that? Wouldnt fudging DM's simply not use SoD's in the first place? I'm strongly anti "free form" fudging, since once you start down that road, why bother rolling in the first place?

 

[Raven Crowking]

I would be happy as a clam if death effects took a bit longer to work. Really, which is more tense, knowing the next save you roll is *BOOM* game over (grab a Gameboy) or knowing you have rounds=con to live? The latter can produce remarkable gaming (be it the clerics frantic scramble to heal you, the PCs kamikaze drive at the BBEG to save the party, or the villain's final monologue scene where he reveals he is the PCs father. All of them.)

I tend to agree, but not in all cases. Dive into lava? You don't even get a save.

RC

 

[shilsen]

I tend to agree, but not in all cases. Dive into lava? You don't even get a save.

RC

Mundane lava? When people are allowed to make saves vs. 9th lvl magic, which can reshape reality, what's so special about molten rocks?

 

[Jedi_Solo]

So why in the world would this reasoning be limited to just save-or-die effects? Isn't *any* sort of death, even the kind that takes 4 rounds instead of 1, going to end a PCs career (barring raise dead et. al.)? Why is killing someone in 4 rounds substantially better than in 1 round?

As others have said: becuase I, as a player, have a chance to react to my PC's impending doom.

This reaction may or may not save my PC's life. Maybe the group has the correct spell or maybe they don't. Maybe a wall has magically appeared between the cleric and the dying fighter so they have to use a few rounds to meet.

As a player I get to at least TRY to save my PC. Maybe I will succeed, maybe I will fail. Maybe my PC will see another adventure, maybe the last thing my PC will do see how many of those [bleep]ing bastards I get to take down with me. To me having those few rounds amps up the drama so much more than a split second 'please not a 1' can ever give me.

I've said time and time again that I hate losing all the backstory and time I've put into a character. If I must lose that backstory I want to have as much control over how I go out as I can - at least this way I can have my wizard attempt to put the party barbarian's rage to shame by leaping face first into melee combat if I so choose.

If my PC is going to croak - I at least want it to be a cool croak. The extra rounds give me that chance.

 

[DM-Rocco]

Mel didn't save or die - his HP were wittled down. (Or Coup de graced, one).

I can name several movies where the main characters die.

But that just proves my point even more - if the main characters never die, then why have insta-death?

The only death effect that I can think of that was save or die was when Hon Solo was frozen in carbonite and made his save versus death and lived, although frozen. If Empire Strike Back was the first in the series he would have been a red shirt or a sub-character. Actually, his role as a main character was played down considerably in Return of the Jedi so he really was a red shirt. In fact, Harrison Ford wanted Lucus to just make the death final after Empire.

Yes, there are a few rare movies where the hero dies at the end and I can name a couple too, but for the most part they live because of hollywood politics and the bottom line of the dallor. Movies where the hero lives and saves the day gross more money thus equals higher hero survivial versus hero deaths.

Anyway, the problem isn't save or die effects, as another posted mentioned, it is easier for a DM to house rule them out then it is to phase them in.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

So if the Bodak did something like 1d6 points Con loss per round with his gaze attack, would that be better? Or rather 1d4 points level loss per round? Or, going with the "hit points represent ALL" philosophy, something like "its current hit points in damage, Fort save for half"?

I don't know when it started to become a problem that hit points only represent the combat durability of a character, a measure for how well he withstands/endures direct physical damage on a larger scale, while other effects like death magic, poison, etc. are handled by more threatening mechanics. Poison simply works very differently than a sword cut, and flooding somebody with the forces of death should have a more profound effect than Xd6 points of damage.

Continuous ability damage to represent some processes, like 1d6 Dex loss/round for petrification, or Con loss for a death gaze, is something that could add a lot of interesting twists, like a bodak trying to keep a constant eye lock with one victim...maybe add some fear/paralyzation effect to keep it going if the victim can't make his save against that first (Will save to avert gaze once locked, Fort save to avoid Con damage, both per round). The same might work for poisons, continually decreasing the attribute of the character until neutralize poison, antidote, etc. was given. Hmm, something I have to try out on my gamers